481 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 58, 2/2021 be achieved. The authors, however, turn this logic upside-down and ar- gue that, instead of minorities, the ac- tual problem is the nation-cum-state paradigm, which requires a critical deconstruction and its eventual re- placement with an alternative, more just model. To achieve this ambitious goal, they take an interdisciplinary approach building on the tenets of social constructivism (extensively elaborated on in the second chapter). After describing the research prob- lem and methodological contours of the analysis, in Chapter 3 the reader is introduced to the historical develop- ment of state formation and nation- building that has led to the present ideological hegemony of the nation- cum-state paradigm. This chapter re- lies on a critical interpretation of po- litical and philosophical discussions in the period between the 16 th and 19 th centuries, as well as key histori- cal events in Western and Central Eu- rope, with a view to the development of human and minority rights and standards. On this basis, the authors reveal four paradoxes embedded in the liberal democratic state (Lock’s liberal paradox, Jennings’ democratic paradox, Arendt’s paradox and Böck- enförde’s paradox), which amount to structural limitations on effective hu- man and minority rights protection. However, despite the comprehen- sive analysis of religious and political power constellations through history, the analysis here suffers from a lack of consideration of the economic aspect, precisely the impact of the development of capitalist economic Sanja Vrbek Faculty of Public Administration, University of Ljubljana Joseph Marko and Sergiu Constantin (eds.) Human and Minority Rights Protection by Multiple Diversity Governance Routledge, New York 2019, 504 pages, EUR 153.50 (ISBN: 978-1-138-95444-1) The book “Human and Minority Rights Protection by Multiple Diver- sity Governance” is a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the state of the art of minority protection. Through an extensive and in-depth analysis of historical developments, political theories and national and international case law, the authors aim to deconstruct the ‘problem’ of minorities as an ideological construct of the nation-cum-state paradigm. Provoked by the global trend of rena- tionalisation, national tensions in the West (by now considered immune to ‘bad nationalisms’) and the rise of the far-right on both local and global levels, the book aims to provide an- swers to two burning questions ‒ why should we protect minorities and whether it is possible to effectively protect them. Already at the beginning of the book, we sense a dose of pessi- mism that within the present con- text, which frames minorities as the ‘problem’ and the ‘threat’ to the very existence of the state, effective mi- nority protection is impossible to PRIKAZI, RECENZIJE 482 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 58, 2/2021 the former to the detriment of the lat- ter. Further, as an additional prob- lem of the nation-cum-state, Chapter 5 refers to the essentialist approach to “diversity as a natural difference”, which perceives groups as homoge- neous entities with pre-determined behaviour based on their ethnic or cultural ‘properties’. To counter-ar- gue this position, the authors adopt a sociological neo-institutionalist stance and discuss differences be- tween groups as a product of interac- tion and social relations embedded in a specific situational context. On this basis, they rebuke the natural- ised conflation of ethnicity‒culture and difference‒diversity characteristic of the nation-cum-state, and thereby open the door to intersectionism which understands identity as a mul- tidimensional construct (consisting of dual or multiple identities). This new approach leaves room for opti- mism since it no longer sees internal- ly divided societies as inherently an- tagonistic. However, annulling group antagonism in practice requires something that the nation-cum-state lacks (and is incapable of having), that is, social and system integration that encourages the development of multiple identities and secures equal status on both individual and group levels, in all segments of society. The significance of this chapter lies in de- constructing how ambiguous a phe- nomenon cultural difference can be, in contrast to the nation-cum-state il- lusion of it being a fixed and ‘natural’ property. relations on the standing of minori- ties. Drawing parallels from other analyses about the impact of capital- ism on other discriminated groups in history, such as women (illustratively captured by Silvia Federici in the “Cal- iban and the Witch”), this emerges as a potentially important perspective also worth considering in the context of minorities. In Chapter 4, the nation-cum-state is dissected as an ideological con- struct relying on many irreconcilable dichotomies – state‒society, civic‒eth- nic, politics‒culture, public‒private, universal‒particular and individual vs. collective rights. Although construct- ed, the authors confidently argue that these ideological dichotomies are no less real as they are internalised in the very organisation of the nation- cum-state and thus used as a basis for legitimating the many problematic policies that disproportionally affect minorities. Through a rich empiri- cal, theoretical and case-law analysis, the authors discuss these problems along the following lines: 1) the myth of neutrality ‒ referring to the duty, but also inability of the liberal state to be neutral (leading inevitably to the assimilation or marginalisation of cultural diversity); 2) the concept of collective self-determination ‒ torn between, on one hand, the goal of au- tonomy pursued by minorities and, on the other, the principle of the in- divisibility of sovereignty guarded by the state (discussed through the case of Catalan independence); and 3) the artificial antagonism between formal and substantial equality ‒ favouring 483 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 58, 2/2021 formation as a potential ‘antidote’ to the essentialist approach of the na- tion-cum-state to ethnic/cultural dif- ference. As the main obstacle, they identify the primacy given to major- ity languages and religion resulting from: 1) linguistic standardisation of the language of majorities ‒ implying superiority and hierarchy vis-à-vis non-standard dialects and minority languages; and 2) secularisation pre- suming the freedom of religion as a negative freedom. The former rests on the perception of language as a means of communication, which to- gether with the significant margin of appreciation given to states gener- ates a favourable environment for the assimilation of linguistic minorities. The latter ‒ the freedom of religion as a negative freedom, indirectly privi- leges the Christian majority while disproportionately affecting religious minorities (precisely Muslims). With- out trying to undermine the conclu- sions about the position held by re- ligion in Europe today, this chapter would have benefited from a clearer expression of the authors’ stance on specific case law ‒ whether they see the court’s argument for building on the nation-cum-state logic, or the de- cisions as such, as problematic. Chapter 8 revisits the ‘formal ‒ sub- stantial equality’ dichotomy to more closely look at the tension between, on one hand, the duty of the state to refrain from discrimination and, on the other, the need for active state intervention to effectively address the unfavourable conditions faced by persons belonging to minorities. In addition, provoked by the many gross atrocities minorities have experienced in history, Chapter 6 re- fers to the right to existence ‒ under- stood as the physical and psychologi- cal security of members of a minority group; fulfilment of their economic needs while keeping their different lifestyle; and their right to have rights (i.e. Arendt’s paradox). This relies on a thorough analysis of the legal standards established since the Sec- ond World War addressing various degrees of violations of this right ‒ war crimes, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide. Re- garding genocide, as the worst viola- tion of all, the authors note some pro- gress in terms of: 1) wide acceptance of the doctrine of the ‘responsibility to protect’, which puts the burden on states to prevent mass atrocities; and 2) the fact that not only individuals but also states can be considered per- petrators. As to the economic aspects of the right to existence, the conclu- sions are more pessimistic, noting that the different lifestyles crucial for the economic and cultural survival of certain groups (i.e. indigenous people) cannot be effectively pro- tected within the present neoliberal economic context. In the end, by re- visiting Arendt’s paradox (the ‘right to have rights’) in the context of the problem of statelessness, the authors conclude that the deeply entrenched presumptions of the nation-cum-state do not allow it to be solved in favour of the most disadvantaged. In Chapter 7, the authors discuss the obstacles to multiple identity 484 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 58, 2/2021 Eventually, the last chapter draws the contours of an alternative model to the nation-cum-state paradigm called multiple diversity governance. This model builds on the triangula- tion of the principles of liberty, equal- ity and human dignity, recognised as the most solid basis for reconciliating the ideas of political unity with legal equality and multiple diversities. The key role here is given to the principle of human dignity as the main yard- stick for the interpretation of nor- mative principles and establishment of institutional arrangements, to achieve both freedom from domina- tion and freedom from interference by others. However, this concluding chapter would have benefited more had ‘human dignity’, as a highly con- tested theoretical concept, been criti- cally discussed and defined. Specifi- cally, a reference to the criticism of this concept as being too vague and potentially problematic (even retro- grade) from the aspect of the lately very popular political/philosophical discussions tackling the issue of ani- mal rights would have enriched this chapter and justified (or made the authors reconsider) the very basis of this model. Nevertheless, this book is a must- read for all those working or interest- ed in the areas of human and minor- ity rights, nationalism and European politics. It provides a rich body of information and thought-provoking discussions that clearly detect and dissect the structural problems which are preventing effective minor- ity protection. Moreover, this book This discussion is complemented with a deliberation on the distinction between direct and indirect discrimi- nation on whose basis the authors build the argument for the need for a group dimension in policymak- ing. However, they conclude that, al- though necessary, the group dimen- sion is insufficient to effectively up- root structural discrimination unless it is combined with a redistributive dimension. As an issue related to the prob- lem of equality, Chapter 9 refers to the effective participation of persons belonging to minorities and critically discusses a range of instruments and rights, from freedom of association to external self-determination. Based on an extensive comparative analysis of different arrangements of minor- ity participation, the authors come to a similar conclusion as in the previ- ous chapters, namely, that to ensure effective participation state policies/ instruments must include a group di- mension. In this context, the reader is also provided with a critical analysis of already implemented institutional solutions, which contrary to their ini- tial goal have not only deepened the ethnic cleavages, discrimination and marginalisation of minorities but led to state dysfunctionality (demonstrat- ed in the case of Bosnia and Herze- govina). Nevertheless, these failures are not pointed out as the inevitable destiny of participatory instruments, as the authors also provide some positive examples, such as the case of the German-speaking community in Belgium. 485 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 58, 2/2021 notranje podrobno razčlenjenih poglavij, dodan pa ji je predgo- vor dveh bivših rektorjev. Skozi ta poglavja avtor analizira položaj univerze z mnogoterih vidikov, kar daje knjigi značaj enciklopedično- sti. Bralcu ponuja tako rekoč več odgovorov, kot bi ta utegnil imeti vprašanj. Pravno analizo dopolnju- je z opazovanjem univerze v siste- mu visokega šolstva in znanosti v Sloveniji ter z njenim odnosom do trga dela, kjer odpira tudi vprašanje zaposljivosti diplomantov. Mestoma doda tudi zgodovinsko razsežnost, izrazito pa jo obogati z mednarod- nimi primerjavami, pri čemer izpo- stavi opredelitev položaja univerze v dokumentih mednarodnih organi- zacij, v nekaterih evropskih državah ter v Južni Koreji. Avtorjev pristop je družboslov- no kritičen. Ost kritike je uperjena na neustrezno izpeljavo 58. člena Ustave Republike Slovenije, ki uni- verzi izrecno podeljuje avtonomijo z zapisom, da so univerza in druge javne visoke šole avtonomne, da pa jim država mora zagotoviti financi- ranje na podlagi zakona. Namesto da bi univerzam in visokim šolam namenili posebno, njim prilago- jeno ureditev, so jih po Zakonu o zavodih opredelili kot javne zavo- de. Namesto da bi jim omogočili, da sami urejajo notranja razmerja med članicami, z zaposlenimi in štu- denti, so jih podvrgli podrobnemu normiranju od zunaj, in to ne le z Zakonom o visokem šolstvu, tem- več tudi z mnogimi drugimi, kot so Zakon o javnih uslužbencih, Zakon identifies the need for an alternative model to the nation-cum-state and provides the initial input in this direc- tion. At this point, the multiple diver- sity governance model proposed as a solution would benefit from a wider and more critical discussion, which will hopefully inspire a more com- prehensive and solid framework for effective minority protection. Ivan Svetlik Univerza v Ljubljani Rado Bohinc Univerza in država: Pravna analiza družbenega položaja univerze Založba FDV, Ljubljana 2020, zbirka: Pravo in gospodarstvo, 348 str. (ISBN 978-961-235-964-5) Dr. Rado Bohinc nam je postre- gel z dokaj obsežnim in razvejanim delom. V središču njegove pozorno- sti je umeščenost univerze v sistem družbenih institucij, pri čemer izsto- pa odnos z državo. Obravnava temo, ki jo je živel kot univerzitetni profe- sor, dekan fakultete in rektor univer- ze. Pri tem uporabi orodja pravne analize, izhajajoč iz svoje speciali- zacije za področje organizacijskega prava. Analizira normativne akte in sklepe sodišč. Bralcu razširi pogled z drugimi področji prava in druž- boslovne analize, pri čemer dobro izkoristi svoje karierne izkušnje iz politike, javnih služb in gospodar- stva, vključno s pisanjem nikoli spre- jetega zakona o univerzi. Knjiga je razdeljena na osem 486 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 58, 2/2021 o sistemu plač v javnem sektorju in podobni. Namesto da bi visokošol- skim učiteljem, raziskovalcem in štu- dentom omogočili ustvarjalno delo, so jih spremenili v javne uslužbence oziroma državne uradnike. S tem so povsem zgrešili pri urejanju polo- žaja akademskega osebja, katerega naloga je skupaj s študenti ustvarjati novo znanje in razmišljati in delovati zunaj ustaljenih okvirov, ne pa rutin- sko zagotavljati storitve vsem stran- kam v enakem obsegu in na enak način, kakor to velevajo predpisi. Namesto da bi bila univerza najpo- membnejši agens družbenega razvo- ja, ki v partnerstvu z državo išče najboljše razvojne rešitve, je državi hierarhično podrejena in nadzirana tako, da ne more v polni meri izkori- stiti intelektualnega potenciala zapo- slenih in študentov, ki jih omejujejo nepotrebna pravila, postopki, poro- čanja in podobno. Podrejenost uni- verze državi tudi preprečuje, da bi ta lahko odgovorno uresničevala svoje družbeno poslanstvo, saj se mora nenehno ozirati na zahteve, ki priha- jajo do nje iz državne administracije. Takšno stanje se vzdržuje že vse od nastanka slovenske države, ko »sta bili obe takratni univerzi v bistvu nacionalizirani« (str. 313). Kljub občasnim presojam Ustavnega sodi- šča se v zadnjih tridesetih letih stanje ni bistveno spremenilo. Še več, tudi Ustavno sodišče ni zmoglo univerze iztrgati iz objema javnih zavodov – ne glede na to, da ustavna opredeli- tev avtonomije univerze ne dopušča nobenega dvoma. Tako je Ustavno sodišče odločilo, da »avtonomnost univerze ne vključuje tudi pravice do samoorganiziranja« (str. 209), kar je po avtorjevi sodbi pravno nevzdrž- no. Zakonodajalec je vseskozi držal visoko šolstvo v okviru zastarelega Zakona o zavodih in krpal Zakon o visokim šolstvu, katerega obseg se je povečeval, posamezni členi pa so pogosto v medsebojnem nasprotju ter v neskladju z Ustavo. Med dru- gim ne opredeljuje javne službe. Je pa tudi v neskladju s priporočili in usmeritvami različnih mednarodnih dokumentov. Posledice dolgo trajajočega neu- streznega zakonskega urejanja viso- kega šolstva v Republiki Sloveniji so globlje, kot se zdi na prvi pogled. Avtor jih prikaže skozi polom ure- sničevanja strategije visokega šol- stva v obdobju 2010–2020 ter skozi razvojno neučinkovitost visokega šolstva pri nas. Med drugim kljub pogosti hvali politike zaostajamo za razvitimi državami tudi v deležu visoko izobraženega prebivalstva. Kot piše avtor, »univerza v slovenski družbi žal ni partner državi, ampak njej podrejena in od nje odvisna javna ustanova z ustavno zagotovlje- no, vendar v praksi neuresničeno avtonomnostjo. Razlog za takšno sta- nje je njen zakonsko podrobno in v mnogočem protiustavno opredeljen položaj v družbi in na tem uteme- ljena oblastna percepcija univerze« (str. 79). Osrednji avtorjev koncept je avtonomija univerze, ki ga motri z razvojne perspektive in perspek- tive mednarodnih dokumentov. Sicer pa sledi operacionalizaciji 487 TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 58, 2/2021 univerzitetne avtonomije, kot jo uporablja Evropsko združenje uni- verz. Gre za akademsko, finančno, organizacijsko in kadrovsko avto- nomijo. Avtor posebej kritično ana- lizira kadrovsko neavtonomnost, pri čemer univerzi ni priznana partner- ska vloga v socialnem dialogu, kjer so plače in nagrajevanje po uspe- šnosti in napredovanja določeni z državnimi predpisi, uvrščanje v plač- ne razrede je določeno z zakonom, prav tako visokošolski nazivi, delov- na in pedagoška obveznost. Pri tem jasno izpostavi, da avtonomija ni absolutna, je pa nujno potrebna, če naj univerza razvija partnerske odno- se z državo in drugimi deležniki. Posebej zanimiva je njegova oprede- litev sodobne univerze, ki bi morala biti raziskovalna in ustvarjalna, vpeta v družbeno okolje, mora delovati v občo korist, mora biti odprta v med- narodni prostor in povezana z njim, njeni značilnosti pa sta tudi univer- zalnost in odličnost. Avtor ne ostane le pri kritiki. Zavzame se za spremembo zakono- daje o zavodih, pri čemer bi morali upoštevati njihove različne funkcije, poslanstva in vire financiranja ter slediti praksi razvitih držav, v katerih so javne službe pogosto organizira- ne po korporacijskih načelih, viso- košolsko izobraževanje pa štejejo kot gospodarsko dejavnost. V tem okviru bi morali sprejeti tudi pose- ben zakon o univerzi, ki bi ji priznal poseben status najvišje kulturne, raz- iskovalne, izobraževalne in razvojne institucije in jo razločil od drugih visokošolskih organizacij. Kot pravi avtor, je »nujno temeljito preurediti visokošolsko in raziskovalno zako- nodajo ter vzpostaviti sodoben institucionalni okvir …« (str. 11). »Univerza naj ima status samostojne in samoupravne neprofitne korpo- racije« (str. 145). Mora biti avtono- mni zavod s posebnim položajem, podobno kot ga ima Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Pri oblikovanju predlogov avtor ne ostane le na načelni ravni, temveč da zelo konkretne napotke, kako to urediti. Knjiga je pregledno urejena in razčlenjeni podnaslovi omogočajo bralcu, da hitro najde vprašanje, ki ga zanima. Podajanje je tekoče brez nepotrebne pravne ezoterike in je tako dostopno širokemu krogu izobraženih bralcev. Priporočam jo vsem, ki iščejo odgovore na vpraša- nja o prešibkem razvoju visokega šolstva pri nas. Še posebej pa poma- ga pojasniti številne nelogičnosti, na katere pri svojem delu in študiju naletijo akademsko osebje in štu- denti. Ko se ob koncu vprašam, ali v tej knjigi kaj pogrešam, je to ana- liza vloge sindikatov in študentske organizacije pri ohranjanju nizke avtonomije slovenskih univerz. To pa je morda tudi tema za naslednjo študijo.